City Hall backers of Portland's street fee set a breathtaking timetable: Unveil details two days after the May 20 election; take testimony from the public a week later; hold a City Council vote one week after that.

Why the rush?

Complexities of the political calendar drove a strategic decision by Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Steve Novick to push the controversial fee plan on what became a politically impossible fast track.

The schedule imploded this week, punctuated by wide-ranging concerns voiced Thursday by residents, business groups, nonprofits and government agencies during a public hearing at City Hall that stretched more than five hours.

As a result, street fees that the City Council will consider approving June 4 will hardly resemble the proposal of a week ago, which was expected to raise up to $50 million a year to repair Portland's crumbling streets and improve transportation safety.

Among the last-minute changes, Hales and Novick now want the City Council to vote next week on residential charges but wait until as late as Nov. 14 to decide the fate of business fees.

And instead of charging homeowners a monthly fee of $11.56 a month, the city would incrementally raise fees annually from $6 to $9 to $12, under an amendment by Commissioner Amanda Fritz, while still offering proportional discounts for low-income households.

Residential fees wouldn't go into effect unless the city approves the proposed charges on business. Both sets of fees would begin July 1, 2015.

The decision by Hales and Novick to rewrite key aspects of the proposal hours before Thursday's meeting – and in some cases during the hearing itself – prompted harsh criticism from some residents who accused the city of playing political "divide and conquer" games in an effort to pass the fees without a public vote.

Portland street fee: Timeline of events

Portland politicians have been talking about the need for a street fee for months, although specifics didn't become public until May 22. Follow our interactive timeline leading up to the June 4 vote.

"This measure is literally changing by the hour, it seems," economist Eric Fruits told the City Council. "There isn't any sort of opportunity for input."

Paul Romain, who represents the Oregon Petroleum Association, urged the City Council to delay next week's vote or voluntarily refer the street fee to voters.

If the City Council refuses, Romain said, business groups and residents will collect the roughly 20,000 signatures necessary to invalidate the City Council's looming decision and force a public vote.

Twenty-eight other Oregon cities have street fees, all approved by local politicians – not voters.

"It will be on the ballot, one way or the other," Romain warned. "There are enough people here who will actually put it on the ballot."

Calendar drives decisions

Election considerations are precisely what prompted the accelerated timeline that is now causing so much trouble for Hales and Novick.

City officials made the strategic decision to release specifics of their proposed "transportation user fee" on May 22, two days after the primary election.

But waiting until after the election left Hales and Novick with just a two-week window to push forward the street fee because of another set of dates on the election calendar.

Any ordinance approved by the City Council can be referred to voters for repeal through a referendum process.

That's exactly what happened in 2001, under then-Commissioner Hales, when the city passed a $1.85 monthly residential street fee as part of the budget but repealed the charge after opponents collected enough signatures to force a public vote.

In 2008, then-Commissioner Sam Adams persuaded the City Council to approve a $4.29 monthly fee only to backtrack and repeal it a week later, in the face of business opposition and the threat of a referendum.

Given that likely scenario this year, street fee backers preferred a referendum at the Nov. 4 general election when turnout generally is higher and skews more liberal.

The deadline to submit paperwork for the November ballot is July 7. The referendum process takes 30 days. Working backward, staff for Hales and Novick realized they'd have to push for a City Council vote June 4 if they wanted the November election as a contingency.

Whether those timelines turn out to be hard and fast rules, however, remains to be seen. Under city code, Auditor LaVonne Griffin-Valade can waive the timing requirements and could still place a referendum on the November ballot at any point before Labor Day. That possibility has been discussed within City Hall.

Before Thursday's hearing, Novick conceded that the timeline, particularly on the business fees, had been too aggressive.

In an interview, Novick said he came to that realization after receiving a series of emails from small business owners, although concerns raised by nonprofits and churches also tipped the balance.

Novick said he mistakenly thought businesses accepted the fee methodology last considered by the city in 2008.

"We were acting from the premise that this was all worked out with the 'business community,'" said Novick, who oversees the Bureau of Transportation.

Novick and Hales, meeting Tuesday afternoon in Novick's office, reached the decision to split the residential and business fees for separate City Council votes.

Officials say they believed the delay would give the city and business groups more time to review the proposed methodology for setting commercial fees, currently based on the type of business, square footage and projections for vehicle trips.

Opponents still fired up

But the concession by Hales and Novick to separate residential and business fees did not seem to quell public ire over the proposal Thursday.

Nearly 90 people signed up Thursday to testify in front of the City Council. Many complained that the council's decision to split the fees would pit residents and businesses against one another, and prompt more skepticism of government.

Council members heard both from business lobbyists, who said a full financial package should be considered, and from low-income residents, who called the fee regressive.

Despite those concerns, Novick warned that city's streets -- in need of $750 million over a decade, according to the auditor – are in jeopardy of falling into "third-world" condition.

Hales said Thursday that while the City Council will consider residential and business fees separately, fee backers still expect to collect half the annual revenues from businesses and half from residents.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Hales and Novick told the rest of the City Council they still plan to push for a vote on the residential portion June 4.

Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association, said his group is considering whether to force a referendum if the City Council moves forward. Gilliam said separating residential and businesses fees complicates, and could delay, the trade group's decision.

"The way they've gone about this, trying to ram this down everybody's throat," he said, "is really backfiring on them."